The Trichordist

In a move with no historical precedent Dr. Carla Hayden the newly appointed Librarian of Congress has removed Maria Pallante the Register of Copyrights. (Hayden testifying before Senate at confirmation hearing).

1. The New Librarian and Soros anti-copyright money:
   The new Librarian of Congress, Dr Carla Hayden is the former CEO of The Open Society Institute a George Soros funded group.  Why does that matter?  Like Google,  The Soros foundation money regularly finds it way to groups that wish to further weaken or abolish copyright protections for authors all together.  Soros is very careful to put his money in places that match his ideology.   For instance the Soros family supports the pro-piracy anti-copyright ideologue Lawrence Lessig in his pivot towards campaign finance reform.  Regardless in 2014 Lessig’s Mayday Super Pac (SuperPac to end all SuperPacs) couldn’t resist  funding a South Dakota Senate candidate that apparently trolled for a copyright lawsuit by recording and broadcasting an unauthorized “reinterpretation” of a  Bob Dylan song. Dylan was smart enough not to take the bait.  The loudest and most ridiculous example of Soros funding groups seeking to weaken copyright is the bat-shit crazy bunch over at Fight For The Future.  This group (run by Google lobbyist Marvin Ammori)  is opposed to fixing the loophole in copyright law that allows services like YouTube to host our work without a permission unless we repeatedly tell them to take it down.  An endless game of Whac-a-Mole.  In response to a Copyright Office public consultation on this matter, Fight For The Future used a “comment bot” to post 86,000 identical canned comments to the regulations.gov website in opposition to the fix.   Fight For The Future then bragged about crashing the Copyright Office servers.  That’s right this Soros backed group bragged about mounting a DoS attack on a federal agency. This was an attack apparently designed to drown out the first amendment protected voices of authors  with spam. This was very simply a hack of our democratic process.   Even the Pirate Party would not dare mount an attack like this on the Copyright Office.  Creators should be concerned that Dr Hayden’s long association with Soros indicates she harbors a deep anti-copyright agenda or at the very least is hostile to the rights of authors.  Certainly firing the sitting Register of Copyrights in her first 6 weeks of her tenure does not bode well.
2. Orwell’s lexicon: Not a removal it’s a reassignment! 
   The new Librarian of Congress is already demonstrating the Orwellian tendencies of the copyleft.   The new Librarian of Congress termed the removal of Pallante as a “reassignment.”    According to various reports Pallante arrived at the Copyright Office and found herself locked out of her computer. Clearly Pallante was unaware of her “reassignment.” Does this sound like she was willingly reassigned? Clearly she had no clue she was being “reassigned.”  And why would the most powerful government copyright official in the world willingly give up her job to be “Senior Adviser for Digital Strategy.” I spent an hour searching US government websites and other sources and the position does not exist. What the fuck?  It sounds like the fancy title you give the intern that manages your Twitter and Instagram accounts.   Tellingly there is no statement from Pallante accepting such a “reassignment.”   Does it trouble anyone else that the Library of Congress, the greatest repository of knowledge on earth, is now headed by someone who’s first big public act appears marred by doublespeak and “truthiness?”
3. Take out the Trash Day.
   Everyone knows Friday afternoon is take out the trash day in Washington DC.  If you need to take out a particularly stinky bit of trash, make it a Friday before a holiday or during the MLB playoffs when the Cubs and Indians look like they are finally going to get in the World Series.    Taking out the trash day by definition is something you don’t want anyone to notice you are doing, because you really shouldn’t be doing it. Removing the Register of Copyrights without cause?  Make the announcement late Friday right before the big game!
4. The Register of Copyrights went against Google/Public Knowledge  on 100% licensing and “unlock the box.”
   The Register of Copyrights has recently earned the ire of Public Knowledge, a Google astroturf group hostile to copyright.  The Copyright Office sensibly pointed out that the Public Knowledge backed 100% licensing rule for songwriters, would unconstitutionally interfere with private contracts and lead to licensing chaos (A federal judge subsequently agreed). Public Knowledge had a hissy fit.  Similarly the Copyright Office had weighed in negatively on the Google backed version of “Unlock the Box” at the FCC.  While on the surface the “unlock the box” set top box reform proposal seems sensible, The Public Knowledge/Google version is apparently larded with goodies for Google, like a compulsory licensing type scheme for video content that likely violates separation of powers doctrine.  In reaction to these two events Public Knowledge wrote this hatchet job on the Register of Copyrights calling for Pallante’s removal.   Perhaps it’s just coincidental but it sure looks like Dr Hayden is doing the bidding of a Google astroturf group.  Certainly it’s worth some questioning.
5. There is something not right about the timing of this article: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/10/27/new-hillary-library/  ostensibly a review of a book, the author of the article Robert Darnton imagines the Library of Congress as a sort of Pirate Bay of Books:  “One fantasy could de-demonize Google and revive its original project: digitize all the books in the world and make them available to all the readers in the world—not for money, as Google intended, but for free. Suppose that the new librarian of Congress decided to open the Library to everyone by digitizing all its holdings and making them available from a National Digital Repository.”  Sure , defund the entire book publishing system (indie and corporate) leaving  only authors with rich sponsors (Koch? Soros?)  the resources to write and publish new books.  Sounds like a great idea!  But aside from that Darnton spends considerable amount of time pumping up the new Librarian Dr Hayden while demonizing Pallante.  In fact, if you read the article without seeing the title you would be forgiven if you thought this was about Hayden and Pallante.   And when was this article published?  Within a few hours of Pallante’s removal.   And the author?  Robert Darnton of Harvard led the putsch to get rid of the old Librarian of Congress Billington.  And Darnton and Hayden the new librarian know each other. They both served on the DLPA steering committee.   Just a coincidence?  I don’t think so.  How much you wanna bet that Darnton and Hayden discussed firing Pallante?
6. Always follow the money.   And this is the money:
   Around the time the new Librarian of Congress was sworn in,  Google and Amazon  started filing millions of  compulsory licenses for songs, using a process that should only be reserved for “address unknown” works.  You know like when you really really, can’t find the author of a work after searching all available records (including your own).  Look at the screenshots below.  Do you think Google really couldn’t find the publisher for the entire Beach Boys catalogue?   Or Porgy and Bess?  It is now 2016, I can’t imagine that Google and Amazon have yet to pay a single songwriter royalty on these songs. Surely the rights holders are in their payment records.  But even beyond that , these songs are easily searchable in the BMI/ASCAP databases. And there is no excuse for Google especially as it also owns a rights licensing company called Rightsflows that purports to pay  most YouTube songwriters and publishers.  They don’t have any records for the Beach Boys and Gershwin?  Even worse it looks like Google is sending licensing notifications for what appears to be unlicensed uploads (bootlegs) of the songs to YouTube.  Compulsory licenses are not available for unauthorized releases. If you really think some unknown company called “Fresh Spring Music”  licenses all these famous recordings  I’ve got some swampland in Florida I want to sell you.   Someone “green lighted” this process and it is unlikely to have been the Copyright Office as the copyright experts at the USCO know this is not the intended purpose of the “address unknown” filing.  None of this bodes well for the new librarian’s  tenure.
   

 

 

Pamela Samuelson: Poor Whinny er
More evidence this is a Google coup.   The ever fucking classy Google fan girl Pamela Samuelson on Maria Pallante’s firing.  Here she is gloating over the firing of Register of Copyrights.  Especially nasty since this was clearly orchestrated by Google because the Register had opposed Google on 100% licensing and the set top box issue.  You know what’s worse than being a poor loser Pam? Being a poor winner. You guys wanted her head and you got it. One day you’ll get yours.

 

 

 

Songwriters, performers, authors and creators meet your new copyright overlord: Eric Schmidt of Google. 

These are dark days for all creators and copyright holders.  After a two month campaign by Google funded astroturf group Public Knowledge, the newly appointed librarian of congress Carla Hayden (herself a Schmidt/Soros acolyte) has fired Maria Pallante the register of copyright.   Pallante was the only one standing between Google and what is left of the copyright system.

This firing is virtually unprecedented in US history.  The Librarian of Congress generally leaves the Register of Copyrights to run the affairs of the copyright office. However in the last two months the main Google mouthpiece in Washington DC Public Knowledge has been clamoring for her head.   Why?

Mainly because she has been a fierce advocate  for creators.  But over the last year she had the courage to stand up to Google and Public Knowledge as they attempted to make two different end runs around the constitution, drawing the ire of Public Knowledge and Google.

First it was the Google backed “100 percent licensing rule” for songwriters which was rammed through the antitrust division in an extra-constitutional manner by a former Google attorney at DOJ. (A federal court has since blocked it’s implementation and Songwriters of North America are challenging it on constitutional grounds)  The copyright office under Maria Pallante had opposed this new rule questioning the legality of the rule and noting the ensuing chaos it would cause in the music licensing space.   It would however benefit Google in their billion dollar dispute with Global Music Rights (Pharrell vs YouTube).

Second the Copyright Office also weighed in on the Google version of the “Unlock the Box” proposal before the FCC.  Ostensibly this proposal would allow consumers to replace the set top box with new hardware and even software apps.   However it appears that Public Knowledge larded the proposal up with all kinds of goodies that would benefit Google.  The copyright office again questioned the FCCs legal authority to intervene in private contracts between copyright holders and broadcasters without a legislative mandate.    Public Knowledge went apoplectic on the Copyright Office after this.

Now they appear to have gotten their way.  In fact the first leak of the news was through a tweet by Public Knowledge.   How did THEY know so quickly.  Google runs our fucking government.

This should concern every american as the staff at Public Knowledge harbors an extreme far left agenda.   The co-founder of Public Knowledge fancies himself a sort of telecommunications/copyright Che Guevara.  No seriously he sells T-shirts of himself as Che Guevara.    See below.

Creators are going to have to mobilize quickly.  We need congressional investigation into this firing.   And we need to prevent Google and Public Knowledge from getting their candidate in to the copyright office. Stay tuned for more.

 

 

[Editor Charlie sez: Insightful must-read artist rights interview with Mike Huppe, the CEO of SoundExchange.] During the following interview, held at the Omni Hotel in Nashville, we covered a variety of topics such as what Huppe calls the AM/FM Artist Loophole, the DMCA Safe “Ocean,” internet enabled auto dashboards and the organization’s new ISRC online […]

via @davidmross: @mikehuppe: Standing Up For The Value Of Music — Artist Rights Watch

I’m looking forward to participating on a great panel on fixing our future in the music business, moderated by the brilliant Dr. Gigi Johnson, founder and executive director of the UCLA Center for Music Innovation. Music 2020: Recreating Music’s Future will be a lunch time panel held on October 13 in Los Angeles under the […]

via Save the Date! Oct 13 in LA MUSIC 2020 Panel at @AIMPorg — MUSIC • TECHNOLOGY • POLICY

As David noted, a post in Digital Music News about DMCA notices sent to Facebook simply got it entirely wrong.  The real issue is that Facebook has been getting away with incentivizing (also called inducing) its users to make illegal copies of recordings, has looked down its billionaire noses at artist rights, and actually sells artist names as advertising keywords.  And getting away with it until now.  The real issue begs the real question–what took so long for the publishers to catch on?  Also, why is it just Universal sending the notices?

Not to mention the elephant in the room.  Why does the U.S. Department of Justice allow Facebook to get away with it?  That’s actually the easiest answer–crony capitalism.

How does Facebook induce infringement?  Simple.  If you want to post a video on Facebook you have a choice–post a link to a video hosted on a semi-licensed site like YouTube or Soundcloud or upload that same.video on Facebook.  If you post the link, Facebook punishes you by ranking your post lower than if you upload that video to Facebook.  This encourages users to upload videos to the unlicensed Facebook platform rather than link to a licensed platform.  And however we might feel about YouTube and Soundcloud, at least they try to get some licenses.

Facebook basically tells artists and especially songwriters to fuck off.  Hence the DMCA notices now coming from Universal and we have to believe that more are coming from others.  Although we doubt that Mark Zuckerberg feels much of a threat from law enforcement.

The Digital Music News post appears to be misleading in at least one other way:  If you just read the post, you would think that Universal was only sending takedown notices on artists with covers.  It is highly improbably that Universal is just sending takedown notices for covers, which is all that the post discusses.  It is far more likely that Universal is doing on Facebook what labels typically do, which is send takedown notices for all infringing uses–including covers.

Because guess what?  If you cover a song in a video, you need to get permission from the songwriters (or their publisher who the songwriter authorized to issue licenses).  That’s called…wait for it…a sync license.  And if you want to make copies of it or make it available for streaming you have to get those reproduction and public performance rights, too, just like you would expect to be treated if it were your own song.

And since the covering artist didn’t get a license and since Facebook are assholes and have refused to get licensed for music on any level, then the cover is infringing and subject to DMCA takedowns.  One condition of Facebook getting the safe harbor (which we don’t think they should be entitled to at all given that they are knowingly inducing infringement) is that they adopt a repeat infringer policy–remember how Cox Communications lost big time to BMG because they failed to have a meaningful repeat infringer policy?  Facebook is way further up the infringement chain than Cox ever was, so they have a whole lot more to lose in what promises to be the mother of all infringement cases.

Which–by the way–Facebook richly deserves to lose, pun intended.   Not that Mark Zuckerberg is losing any sleep about that infringement exposure.

 

So the reality for songwriters is that Facebook has been asking for the full DMCA treatment for a long time.  The fact is that they are serial infringers, refuse to get a license and are a big fat target.  If some covering artists get caught up in this process, then so be it.  They’re only getting repeat infringer notices because they are repeat infringers–induced by Facebook to be sure, but repeat infringers right along side Mark Zuckerberg.  Except they’re not getting invited to the same dinners that Mark is.

And to add insult to injury, not content to induce infringement, Facebook also sells the artist’s name as an advertising keyword.  The subject of the Digital Music News story covered DNCE, so we checked if we could buy DNCE’s name in a boost audience on Facebook.  And sure enough:

Not only is Facebook allowing these songs to be used without a license–something that may feel uncomfortable but is nonetheless an issue–they are also ripping off the artist’s own name.

That’s a twofer in the infringement world–infringing the copyright and misappropriating the artist’s name.

What kind of person does this?  The kind of person who knows they will never be held to account for their actions.

Ah Bernie, we hardly knew ye.

I don’t know David Benjamin (Universal Music), but he’s a hero to all songwriters. Making the billionaire robber barons at Facebook pay a licensing fee for use of songwriters’ songs is only fair. Every other business that uses music, including websites, television stations, radio stations and even YouTube pay for some kind of license. It’s not 1999 anymore, internet firms are the biggest companies on the planet, quit nickel and diming songwriters, you cheap and obscenely rich fucks.

However Ari Herstand at Digital Music News has a totally different and once again deeply misinformed take.  He goes after David Benjamin personally for being “an idiot.”  Instead Herstand frames it as UMG against music fans.  When in actuality it is Facebook’s decision to hide behind the DMCA and NOT license.

It’s worth reading Ari’s piece to understand that most young writers do not understand how these technology companies like Facebook manipulate public opinion.  They use their users as human shields to avoid paying licensing fees. “It’s our users doing this not us”   This is exactly what Napster did; Google and YouTube do the same; and now it’s Facebook turn.   It’s getting really old. We’ve been hearing this crap since 1999.

Facebook Is Aggressively Ripping Down Cover Videos (Thanks to the Idiots At Universal Music Publishing Group)